How would you be affected if the Bank of England started issuing digital cash?

Home » Blog » 2016 » February » 01 » How would you be…
digital cash helicopter money bank of england

 

digital cashWe’ve just published a new report arguing that the Bank of England should start issuing ‘digital cash’ – essentially an electronic version of the physical notes and coins we use every day.  You can read the summary and download the report here. But how would you be affected if the Bank of England started issuing digital cash?

Currently, members of the public have a choice of using two kinds of money. One – physical cash – is created by the state, via the Bank of England. The other – the electronic money in your bank account – is created by banks as they issue loans. The vast majority of money now consists of the electronic kind created by banks, which means if you want to use any kind of electronic payments, you need to use the money created by the banking system. In fact, since few companies still pay salaries in cash, most people have no option but to use electronic bank accounts.

Please note, this is not a proposal to abolish physical cash. Notes and coins are going to be around for at least another 30 years or so – as long as people keep using them. For privacy concerns, digital cash issued by central banks is no different in terms of privacy than payments made using electronic bank accounts. And again, cash will still be around for 30 years or so.

The central bank actually already issues a form of electronic money, in the form of ‘central bank reserves’ held in electronic accounts at the Bank of England. But these accounts are provided only to banks, building societies and a small number of other systemically-important financial institutions. Members of the public, businesses and even most companies in the financial sector are unable to get accounts or store funds at the Bank of England. Instead, they have to hold their money in the form of deposits at commercial (i.e. high-street) banks. These banks back those deposits with a much smaller pool of electronic money at the central bank, and a much larger pool of risky assets.

In the paper we propose that the Bank of England should allow everyone – not just banks – to hold electronic money in accounts at the Bank of England. In the report we explain how the Bank of England could introduce ‘Digital Cash Accounts’ (DCAs) in which you could electronically store your money. Because digital cash would be held at the Bank of England, it would be 100% risk-free and never exposed to the risk of a bank failing. But unlike physical cash, which can only be spent in face-to-face transactions, digital cash would be connected to the electronic payment system, so it would be as convenient to use as the money in your bank account.

Of course, the Bank of England wouldn’t want to provide 60 million accounts, plus debit cards and all the customer service that comes with it. So we’ve proposed a way in which private sector firms, called “Digital Cash Account Providers”, would manage the accounts. So you would deal with a DCA Provider to open an account, get a debit card, internet banking, and customer service, but behind the scenes, the money would always be stored safely at the Bank of England. You would always own the money in your account; the DCA Provider would just provide you with a useful and customer-friendly way of using that money to make payments. This is in contrast to the existing banking system, where instead of owning the funds in your account, you simply have an IOU from the bank.  

DCA Providers wouldn’t be allowed to lend the funds in your account, or place them at any risk. So whereas the government has to guarantee normal bank accounts (up to £75,000 per customer per institution) in case the bank takes too much risk and fails, money stored in a Digital Cash Account would be guaranteed up to any amount by virtue of the fact that it would be stored at the Bank of England (which will only ‘fail’ if the entire government and state collapses).

There is one downside: because the DCA Provider can’t earn interest by lending or investing your money, it has to cover its costs in other ways. So Digital Cash Accounts are very likely to charge fees on either a monthly or per-transaction basis. However, that’s not necessarily a disadvantage: because a DCA Provider has to tempt customers away from the existing banks, they’ll probably focus on providing much better customer service, better ways of making payments, and better ways of managing your money. It’s also worth remembering that bank accounts with the existing banks in the UK aren’t truly free; the bank intends to recover its cost of providing accounts through lending to you at some point in the future.

So by issuing digital cash, the Bank of England would give the public a choice between the electronic money created by the banks, and electronic money created by the state. You could effectively ‘opt out’ of using bank-issued money.

Digital cash could also provide the Bank of England with a new way of implementing monetary policy. Ever since the crisis, policy makers have been trying to find a way to increase employment and help the economy to recover. But most of their policies have failed. Lowering interest rates to close to zero was intended to increase borrowing, but because people were  already in so much debt and couldn’t afford to borrow more, this didn’t work as well as they had hoped. Quantitative Easing – the creation of £375 billion of new money by the Bank of England – had the effect of inflating financial markets and increasing the wealth of the already wealthy, but had little effect on spending in the real economy.

Clearly the Bank of England needs a new tool of monetary policy: something which will increase spending in the real economy, without increasing household debt or artificially inflating financial markets. Digital cash allows it to do this quickly and effectively. Provided that every citizen has at least one Digital Cash Account, the Bank of England would be able to credit each account with an equal amount whenever it is necessary to stimulate the real economy. This policy is sometimes referred to as ‘helicopter money’ or a ‘citizen’s dividend’, and it’s getting more and more support from high-profile economists. Digital cash means that helicopter money can be implemented in small amounts, for example on a monthly basis. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that this policy would be better and safer than the strategies the central banks have been using until now.

Issuing digital cash has other significant benefits for the economy and for financial stability. These are outlined in detail in the report, but in brief:

  • It can make the financial system safer: Since anyone who wants to make electronic payments (including large corporations and financial sector firms who often need to transfer tens or hundreds of millions at a time) currently must use bank deposits to make payments, the failure of one large bank can be catastrophic. This is one of the reasons why large banks are ‘too big to fail’. By allowing people and companies to bypass the banks and pay each other directly using central bank money, a significant amount of risk would be removed from the financial system. Also, as more people chose to store their funds at the Bank of England in Digital Cash Accounts, the less need there would be for the government to guarantee the deposits created by banks.
  • It can encourage competition in payment accounts: At the moment it’s extremely hard for a new bank or technology firm to start providing current/checking accounts to compete with the big banks. This is partly because it is very difficult to get an account at the Bank of England. The regulatory framework we’ve proposed in the report [LINK] would allow much more competition, and remove the banks as ‘gatekeepers’ to the payment system. This is quite important to Positive Money, because banks are currently able to argue that they deserve special treatment (i.e. being allowed to create money) because they provide the payments system and savings and loans. But the peer-to-peer industry is now competing with the banks for their lending business. We need other firms to compete with banks for their payments business. Once it becomes clear that the functions of (1) payments and (2) savings and lending, can by provided by completely separate companies, it becomes much harder to argue that banks should be allowed to retain this unique business model which combines both functions in a way that enables them to create money.
  • It can recapture some of the seigniorage on money creation: When the Bank of England issues paper money, the proceeds from issuing that money are greater than the costs of printing it, and the profits go back to the Treasury, reducing the amount the government has to tax or borrow. But since it is currently banks that create electronic money, the government loses the seigniorage on this money. By issuing digital cash, some of that seigniorage would be recaptured.

It’s looking quite likely that some form of digital cash will be implemented at some point in the future. Last week, a deputy governor of the Bank of England announced that it would be starting a year-long consultation about who should have access to the electronic accounts at the Bank of England. At this point, the Bank of England is probably thinking about simply allowing a wider range of financial firms to have access to central bank accounts, which would be an improvement on the current situation. However, we think there would be significant advantages from going further to make digital cash accounts available to all citizens.

For more details, read the full report here.

 

 

Stay in touch

Trackback from your site.

Ben Dyson (Positive Money)

Ben is Positive Money's Head of Research. He founded Positive Money in 2010 and is a co-author of Modernising Money. Ben's research focuses on potential reforms better forms of monetary policy, structural reforms to the banking system, and the potential for technology to disrupt the payment and banking systems.
  • Adrian

    Three words: negative interest rate.
    No stuffing physical money under the mattress is we go digital. HOWEVER that might not be a bad thing. Those like me who believe in taxing wealth see some kind of consistency with taxing cash, which if 100% digital would also be 100% non-avoidable.

  • Cushy Glen

    This presents some concerns.
    There must be room in a nation’s monetary policy for old fashioned cash which is not centrally created & controlled. This would enable local groups – councils or community development groups – to create local currencies. We cannot become totally dependent on the Bank of England for all our money just as now we should not be dependent on international private banks.
    Money creation should have a degree of devolved power to the people.

    • Fran Griffiths

      Local currencies are unfortunately completely dependent on debt based commercial bank created money. Even access to old fashioned cash nearly always requires a person to have a bank account before they can get their hands on any if it.

      Some people might be able to find employers who will pay them in cash but the only way those notes could get into circulation is through a person with a bank account accepting them in exchange for debt based digital money.

      I am excited by the idea of central bank accounts. I want one. It goes with generating your own electricity, growing some of your own food and collecting your rainwater. It is not good to feel you are completely dependent on global corporations for every little thing you need for survival. Safe money is the most important of those things.

      • solutrean

        Fran, you may have heard of the Rates (Council Tax) voucher scheme mentioned in James Gibb Stuart’s book “The Money Bomb.” I believe the scheme would work something like this:-

        Assume that the Central Government cut the grant to your local council by say £20 Million. The council would simply issue vouchers to the same value and gradually introduce them into the local economy.

        The vouchers would be issued as part payment of council staff wages or as part payment to local businesses for services rendered, making up perhaps 3% of those costs. Once accepted they would circulate as a local currency.

        They could be redeemed at any time as payment of council tax or business rate.

        The vouchers would not be inflationary because they would simply bridge the gap left by the government cuts, nor would they add to the councils debt.

        If this voucher scheme was widely accepted by local councils, the government cuts would be largely circumvented. A nationally known food outlet has used vouchers for many years so why not local councils?

        • Fran Griffiths

          A council is like government in that it has the power to demand (local) taxes. I have a copy of The Money Bomb somewhere and I remember reading that a council, in Scotland I think, tried this for a while.You are right that such a scheme could create a currency that would be debt free and independent of banks.In Gloucester, council employees can already choose to have their council tax paid directly out of their wages. However 3% of the average person’s wages would be quite a bit of less than most people’s council tax bill so I think council tax vouchers would be unlikely to be widely available as a means of exchange.

          • RJ

            “that would be debt free”
            It wouldn’t be debt free though. As the council would have to back this new money in exchange for local taxes owing. Only the taxing authority of the council and their ability to swap it one for one with UK £ would make it work. And this one for one link would make this proposal largely pointless. That’s why Ben’s PM proposal is much better. Monetary sovereign Govt can do much more than any non monetary sovereign entity including taxing authorities (eg Greece).

          • Fran Griffiths

            I do agree with you that the Positive Money proposals for state money creation would be much better, but not for the reason you give. I do not believe that there is any logical reason why local council issued money vouchers would have to be backed by commercial bank money (money that has been issued as debt). There may be a legal reason for some sort of token redemption value to be honoured. I have noticed that shopping vouchers have (extremely low )redemption values printed on them but these typically amount to no more than the scrap value of the paper they are written on I should think!

            Minski pointed out that anyone can issue a currency, backed by nothing at all. The difficult bit is to make it generally acceptable so that people have confidence in it and it works as a means of exchange. Mosler, who is, I believe, a writer you respect, gave the example of a family where the parents started issuing coupons for chores done and at the same time declared that each child would have to pay 10 coupons a week to avoid punishment. It is easy to see how these coupons could acquire value as a means of exchange. One child short of time to do chores might sell a coveted possession for enough coupons to stay out of trouble. The parents do not need to promise to redeem coupons for money.They would have value within the family, though not outside it, obviously.:-)

            In 19th century Guernsey, the money notes which the island government issued, did have a redemption date on them. This was the date when the note could be exchanged for uk currency.They did this to increase confidence in the notes so that they would circulate freely but in fact the notes were very popular and probably would have been just as acceptable without the promise.

            In colonial Ghana, the British colonial authority issued a currency with which to pay the local population to work in the cocoa plantations. In order to provide the motivation for people to exchange their labour for what to them was worthless bits of metal and paper, they imposed property taxes.
            In other words, “If you pay your taxes we promise we won’t burn your house down.” The currency was backed by the requirement to pay taxes not exchange ability with some other currency, although any currency with a high exchange value is, of course, all the stronger for it.

          • solutrean

            I’m afraid you are wrong again RJ. The money is backed by the labour and productivity of the workers who would otherwise be made redundant by the government cuts, these workers would provide the goods and services that otherwise would not be available to the community.

            This proposal is not in competition with Ben’s idea. The local currency theme is just an interesting aside.

      • Mark Kerridge

        Hi Fran,
        the bristol pound is 100% backed by sterling ( which is obviously 97% bank credit at the present time ). However, the BP, and any other local currency, could just as easily be backed by central bank created money. It dosensn’t follow that local currencies have to be depandant on debt based money..
        A local currency model maight very well be a good way of geographically targeting sovereign money / PQE to address deprived areas or the north / south divide, for instance,by the central bank crediting the accounts of the instutions that administer any particular local currency ( Bristol credit union in the case of the BP…).which could then be lent or used to fund investment grants within the area of the local currency..

        • Fran Griffiths

          Good to hear from you Mark. Yes that is true, but if we had central bank issued public money, (digital cash), we would all have access to debt free money even if we chose not to use a local currency.

    • Formerly there were municipal banks – Birmingham had one, Jersey had another – which issued currency for local use secured on the rates. It was the town councillors who ran the bank and were its shareholders until they resigned / retired.

      They gave a better rate on deposits and provided loans more cheaply than high street banks. Local infrastructure was built using these loans and the towns that had their own banks prospered.

      There were also trust and savings banks and we can all remember the independent Post Office Bank. These are now all owned by the High Street banks so no competition for deposits remains

    • murrayzz1

      What you describe as “old fashioned cash” is the only part of the current system which IS under any form of democratic control. The remaining 97% of money created has no democratic control or accountability at all.

      Your suggestion that some of the process of money creation could be devolved to more local groups is entirely compatible with the system of the BoE taking on a democratically accountable role in money creation.

      I often hear people objecting to Positive Money’s ideas on the basis that they are not perfect. I would ask you, is the system that they are describing better or worse than the one we’ve got now?

      Clearly some democratic accountability is better than none, so it may not be perfect, but it’s better than the current system and a step in the right direction.

      Personally, I’d rather that we were dependent on a State-owned, State-controlled bank that is answerable to the Government than on a tiny handful of oligarchs who are not accountable to anyone except themselves.

    • AndyDay

      I can see the future consisting of an eco-system of devolved localised digital currencies based on blockchain technology that exist alongside a centralised system like the one being advocated by Positive Money for the Bank of England. It may be some way off but once the commercial banks have their stranglehold on the right to make us all transact in debt removed, and once people’s minds are shaken out of the trance that keeps them clinging to this system, this seems the inevitable way forward.

      Yes, it will take a sea-change in the financial world but this is getting closer and closer as the current debt/money system reaches its logical conclusion. I wouldn’t fear this idea as another dependency situation, rather see it as the door being opened to a whole new diverse, localised (whether physically or virtually) transaction system. If there is enough political will in the people to support the undoubted innovative drive through entrepreneurs to embrace this technology, it is the diversity that it will usher in that will be part of the liberation that lets us all evolve our trasactions as human beings to a new level.

  • theGreatFuzzy

    Why reinvent the wheel? There already is a digital cash system up and running – bitcoin. It costs nothing to open an account[1] or run one. Transaction fees are very small (paid by the consumer not the merchant). Also bitcoin is a deflationary currency thus your coins increase in value with time, in the long term. Plus bitcoins cannot be printed to oblivion by the government. What more could you want?

    [1] Well, converting your £s to bitcoins will cost a bit (unless you get paid in or sell stuff for bitcoins) but once we’re all using them there’s no further cost.

  • Holland Pfmpe

    They should hang Ben Dyson

  • Marco Saba

    Yes, but…100% of the value of the electronic cash issued should be recognized as a liability from the BOE to the Treasury (as seigniorage) and the Treasury should use this asset – seigniorage aka monetary rent – to finance public works and services (as an example, to finance the Universal Basic Income).

  • SvenAERTS228

    CO2e certificates is understood exactly the same all over the world, is 100% electronic, you can open a CO2e account and you can transfer it between accounts worldwide at the speed of an email. That’s why they’re often referred to as “Carbon Money”. And the only way to generate them is removing 1 ton of CO2e from the atmosphere e.g. by planting a tree. So poor people who have a very hard time getting fossil currencies like euro’s and $, etc. they can generate this carbon money often much easier: just plating a tree that takes 1 ton of CO2e, have it certified and your village has money. So this generating this currency helps solving one of humanities problems. The 17 sustainable development goals sum up pretty well humanities’most pressing problems. Similar SDG currencies could be developed: your team does know how to bring 10.000 6 year olds through school and get a degree by the age of 16-18? Objectively verified and certified? Well, that could earn you 10.000 SDG 4 Certificates and you’d be able to use them as a currency or exchange them for fossil currencies.

    • Crash

      The carbon money idea sounds interesting and I admire its aspirations but I have my doubts about its scalability, but I definitely think it’s going in the right direction. To be honest, I am fascinated by the idea of an energy based currency as energy is the ultimate source of value. It would therefore be the ideal candidate to back a universal currency which is in alignment with the environment. The problem with this idea, however, is that, as long as we use fossil fuels money creation would be tied to harming the environment.
      The perfect currency would therefore be, in my mind, based on scientific units of energy (kWh), but sourced from renewables alone. With microgrids increasingly becoming a thing all around the world, energy (and therefore money) creation would be decentralised by those who harvest nature’s free supply of energy and the incentive to invest in green energy would be massive as people would be literally creating money.

      I believe that with the advent of Ethereum and smart contracts (which are based on the blockchain technology) this pipe dream is likely to actually become a reality very soon. If it were adopted as the reserve currency of the world it would create a massively positive impact on our environment.

      • SvenAERTS228

        Doubts about its scalability? CDM projects have been going on in just about every country on the planet and catalised about 2 Trillion euro in green projects reducing CO2e. Pretty good start and scaling up? It just brought back the power of printing money into the hands of the poor and those who know how to remove CO2e / solve one of humanities worst challenges if we may believe the Sustainable Development Goals. Put those CO2e certificates in the basket that makes up the SDR’s Special Drawing Rights and humanity will have set a step to greening its currency/money system. I don’t see why it couldn’t be expaned to a similar moneys based upon certificates obtained whenever a unit of the other SDGoals challenges has been removed/solved and awarded to groups who DO have the skills to solve a unit of e.g. bringing 10.000 kids through school and get them a degree. There is no problem in scalability. Just scale it until the problem is solved … more than enough room for scaling up!

  • Douglas Beal

    Great way to distribute a basic income for all. I hope it wouldn’t mean the end of physical cash as digital transactions are not always convenient or available. Festivals, car boot sales and other small time dealers and deals..

  • The Central Bank of China have started

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfjML8apkG0

  • Joshua Msika

    How does this proposal compare to the National Savings & Investments accounts?

  • I’m sorry Ben, but this idea of Digital Cash is a complete non-starter whilst there is a criminal ‘influence’ overseeing the world’s (digital) money supply, namely the privately controlled central banking system led by the secretive and unaccountable Bank for International Settlements (BIS). And this includes your beloved Bank of England! Just ask yourself this one simple question – who does Mark Carney answer to……George Osborne or the controllers of the BIS? Money must be the servant of the people and must be created, issued and controlled by our elected government through our Treasury…..just as our nation did in 1914 with the Bradbury Pound.

  • Peter Verity

    Charging for digital accounts would be a big dis-incentive, but I don’t believe it is necessary. The cost of providing every adult in the UK with a digital account would be about £3bn (based on Positive Money’s estimate of £60 each), but the seigniorage from the Positive Money proposals would be about £50bn. So “transaction” accounts can be provided to all as a universal benefit.

  • RJ

    A good report. And a proposal that might have a chance of being implemented under a different government. If for example Corbyn is elected PM. And if implemented could produce some unexpected benefits not really covered in your report.

    But regarding the comment below

    “6 . Currently, the Bank of England pays interest to banks on the central bank reserves they hold (reserves are ‘remunerated’). Whilst this is currently only at 0.5%, it is expected that rates will rise in the future. Meanwhile, banks (in the UK at least) are currently paying 0% or close to zero percent interest on deposits.”

    QE was close to £400 billion. This resulted in £400 billion of extra bank credit. But also an extra £400 billion in excess reserves. At 0.5% this comes to £2 billion. Not a bad outcome for the banks.

    I unsure how much banks pay (if anything) out in extra interest on this additional money. But QE results in say interest moving from pension funds. To the banks. It’s less in total so is good for the Govt (as bond interest earned by the BoE is returned to the treasury I assume). But is still a nice little additional earner for the banks. And may increase.

    And re additional reserves held by the banks due to extra interest. The other side is of course the lost interest from reduced reserve holdings. If 10 billion is transferred from our bank accounts to the BoE. The banks will reduce (debit) our bank accounts. But also reduce and transfer 10 billion reserves to the BoE. This could seriously impact on the banks profits (and excess reserves holdings) if a future Govt started paying interest on digital cash held at the BoE. And money started flowing from bank accounts to BoE accounts in a big way.

  • Zafar Bukhari

    Money is earned in regards of Goods and services. While financial services are a subset, who primarily deal with channeling of savings. The monetization of the economy is a government directive; if the govt. would like to channel savings, then the paper suggests a plausible route.

    A monetization of Central Bank Money, even of a less-than-finite supply, may not be necessary to repair the shortfall in deposits. Although, the addition of a citizens good-bank might well promote economic confidence in the business-loans market, which would help foster growth. Adjusting the NIRP policy is, at this stage, still untested. To my eyes, I am not certain that such measures will produce the required result.
    There is a need for Structural Change, and a desire to preserve the value of the currency. Confidence -building would hope that the books should be balanced, and that employment rise as incomes rise:

  • Vince Richardson

    “It’s also worth remembering that bank accounts with the existing banks in the UK aren’t truly free; the bank intends to recover its cost of providing accounts through lending to you at some point in the future.”

    Not to mention exhorbitant overdraft fees ,for us mere mortals who go into the red now and again.

  • Juan Lauda

    It’s going to be almost impossible to convince people that centrally controlled electronic money isn’t a power grab for a police state. There’s nothing like being able to reach right into peoples lives and turn off the money supply to make them do what you say – or just destroy them. The thought of the current government with this power I find so appaling that, no matter how much I support your efforts, I couldnt agree to this.

    • RJ

      This is the danger of course. That it’s the first move in this direction. No other banks and no cash except for an account at a Govt controlled super bank. Where if you step out of line look out. But I’m all for balance. And at present it’s moved too far in the opposite direction regarding money. But retaining cash (notes and coins) is essential in my view. And also privately owned banks that can issue bank credit. Otherwise Govt’s end up having far too much power.

    • Fran Griffiths

      The government already has the power you fear them acquiring. On the whole they use it to make sure everyone has access to a bank account ( the basic bank account) and the means to earn a living. Except when it comes to immigrants without a legal right to live here. They are now, or soon will be, denied the right to rent a property and it is impossible to open a bank account without an address.

      Governments want their citizens to have access to money. Money is what makes us governable. It enables us to pay taxes and be fined if we step out of line. It enables us to take on financial commitments that keep us working enough hours to keep us all in the manner to which we have become accustomed.

      I do fear the demise of cash but if it has to go eventually, then central bank accounts for all seem to me almost as safe, safer in some ways. Can’t be lost or stolen so easily.

  • Russell Morris

    a basic income bank, where individuals go to pick up, or confirm their acceptance of a basic income payment (or a citizens dividend payment),
    at timely intervals, which acknowledge a person’s spending habits historically and live ( so that one never goes “broke”. this is helpful to folks who have never had enough money and don’t know how to manage finances, like poor people and people in desperate circumstances. )
    gradually these folks can develop healthy spending habits, and payments could be available for pick up in larger payments and in a more regular style
    of course any money beyond the basic income can be spent in any way, but basic income is for LIVING expenses. to cover the cost of supporting LIFE.
    the funds are confirmed or picked up at the banks
    (which are built locally for convenience and familiarity)
    with camera surveillance for security and identification verification
    and interacting with a teller personally, so there is a human element involved
    (as it is done now).
    any basic income (which is not picked up or confirmed, because there may be folks who are too proud to accept a basic income)
    could go into a fund, which can offer loans to young people for buying a vehicle
    (because every young person should be ABLE to do this, it is the most common first big purchase and almost a necessity these days)
    folks who are familiar with finances and managing money, would only need to come in perhaps every couple of weeks to confirm acceptance or receive the payment.
    (maybe this could have an effect of equality in some way)
    when everyone begins receiving a basic income, then our incentive to “do things” gradually becomes different, so that each person is ABLE to make choices more wisely and in a way which always puts LIFE first, instead of “just making more money”.
    and each person is ABLE to say no, to harmful “work” which is now being done in the name of money, “just making money”. this can help our planet a lot.
    (it seems that we have developed an instinct “to make money”, sort of like a bird “makes a nest”. there will probably be a period of confusion by a lot of people when they start to receive a basic income, because they will not know what to do, and might have all kinds of mixed up “feelings”. I personally have a free place to live, which I consider my basic income. and it is taking me years to dismantle the conditioning which leads me to “feel” like everything is ok as long as I am “making some money”. gradually I am “feeling” more comfortable when I go for long stretches without “making any money”. and in this slow process I am gradually seeing other more noble reasons for “working”.

No Announcement posts

back to top